Jump to content

User talk:Whats new?/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The Nurses TV series...

Your point about the two The Nurses TV series articles over at WT:NCTV has got me to thinking that you are 100% right about those two articles needing to be merged. I'm a little busy the next few days, but I'm going to try to put some merge tags over at those articles, and start a discussion about this. But as the 1965 series is clearly a continuation of the 1962 series, just shifted to daytime from primetime (and switched to ABC from CBS), one article for both series makes the most sense in this case IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Yeah I think the case could be made. Looking at both articles, it looks like storylines did change somewhat and the cast is completely different according to the infobox. If there was more content for either page I'd keep them separate but they are both not much above stubs, so a merge may be more beneficial. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of countries by tax rates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taxation in Georgia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Jessica Dietrich

Hi,

I've just created an article for Seven News Sydney reporter Jessica Dietrich. Check it out when you have the time. MasterMind5991 (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@MasterMind5991: Hi, I've reviewed this article and note it has been AfDed, and regrettably, I agree that this reporter is likely not notable enough for an article at this time. Unfortuently, most television reporters aren't simply notable by appearing on television alone as a general reporter or journalist. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Fair Use in Australia campaign update

I'm writing you this followup message, as you took the time to vote in support of a Wikipedia banner campaign for the introduction of Fair Use in Australia.
After much planning and coordination with the WMF, Australian Digital Alliance, and Electronic Frontiers Australia, as of Monday the banner-campaign is active on English Wikipedia to a portion of logged-out readers in Australia (technical details). The banners direct people to this page on Meta: FairCopyrightOz. That page, alongside lots of information, further directs people towards the campaign website faircopyright.org.au where Australians are invited to write to their local MP to express support of Fair Use. If you are interested in supporting this campaign, please, send a letter yourself using the template letter provided at that link.
Furthermore, and with the support of the ADA & EFA, we have received fantastic media coverage - with article "Fair Use: Wikipedia targets Australians in bid to change the law" appearing on page 2 of the Sydney Morning Herald and page 10 of the Melbourne Age on Monday's edition. It was for a time the 3rd most read article the Fairfax website, and Fair Use was "trending" on Twitter in Australia. We are running the account @FairCopyrightOz on twitter, and we are tracking other press-mentions on the talkpage on Meta.
Today, day 2, we published a detailed post about the campaign on the Wikimedia Blog, ran an "Ask Me Anything" Q&A session on the Australia page in Reddit, and [by happy coincidence of timing] the article History of fair use proposals in Australia appeared on the en.wp mainpage as a Did You Know. [The creation of that "history of..." article was a specific request arising from in the community consultation in which you voted].
And, most importantly, in a little more than a day nearly 800 letters to MPs have been sent encouraging them to support the Productivity Commission's recommendation to adopt Fair Use in Australia. I urge you - please add your own message.
Sincerely, Wittylama 16:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stan streaming logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stan streaming logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lifestyle Channel logo 2016.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lifestyle Channel logo 2016.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lifestyle Food logo 2016.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lifestyle Food logo 2016.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of a group of articles

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Seven Network where at least one article you created si being discussed. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ABC Television programming

Template:ABC Television programming has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ABC News programming

Template:ABC News programming has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Seven Network programming

Template:Seven Network programming has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sky News Australia programming

Template:Sky News Australia programming has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Australian television episode ratings

Hey, WN. Just letting you know that I made a few changes to {{Australian television episode ratings}} ([1][2]), to remove the hash symbol for ranks. Per MOS:HASH: "Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings." Examples of this are the series overview at List of Arrow episodes#Series overview, or the ratings table at Blindspot (TV series)#Ratings. Cheers. -- AlexTW 06:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Thanks for that, I was unaware of that policy, and I'm not sure I'm quite ready to get back into the world of template editing just yet! Thanks for the heads up-- Whats new?(talk) 07:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:David Speers interviewing George Brandis on PM Agenda.png

Thanks for uploading File:David Speers interviewing George Brandis on PM Agenda.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for your message. I agree with your rationale, and the two other images used at the page of the living person were added after the image in question. The original rationale I used was that the photo is of an interview which won a Walkley Award, a top journalism prize in Australia, however given there are now free images available and existing, I agree this image can be removed. Thanks -- Whats new?(talk) 05:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Australian survey, 2017 (Marriage)

Hey there, re Australian survey, 2017 (Marriage), I notice your edit summary here said "founding dates of parties not relevant", but your edit actually added them back in. I had removed them a few edits previously. I'm guessing you made a mistake in either the edit or the edit summary, but I'm not sure which so you might want to review. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ivar the Boneful: Thanks for that - I think I was undoing another edit at the same time and readded them by mistake. Thanks for picking that up, essentially my edit summary was correct. I'll take the columns back out. Sorry for the confusion. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

No consensus for this type of formatting???????

All rating metrics are rounded to thousands. Some publishers will round it further to 10 thousand units. Some publishers will use fractional units in millions and some like tvtonight will pad with ,000 so they don't need to declare the units used. The padding uses up unnecessary space and is misleading in that some people might not be able to workout the values are rounded. Also there should be some sort of consistency between units used in the season list table and the ratings table. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

How various websites choose to round or publish figures is not relevant to how they are presented here. I don't understand your argument as to people not working out "the values are rounded" - if the number is written in full it is pretty obvious there is no rounding. Rounding is commonplace for shows of 7 figures and above, but not for those under 7 figures as at The Wrong Girl (TV series). -- Whats new?(talk) 01:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The source figures are rounded to thousands which is obvious by the use of ",000" in place of a unit. Including the unnecessary ",000" could misled a reader in to thinking they are not rounded to thousands. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Australian ratings from OzTAM are ALWAYS released rounded to the nearest thousand. See [3], [4], [5] for example. So again, I don't understand what you're saying because the figures ARE rounded. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
from [6] which states 899,000 viewers could be taken to be an exact figure, whereas if it were written as 899k viewers or 899 thousand viewers makes it clear that the figure was rounded. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think you understand mathematics. 899,000 = 899k = "899 thousand viewers." What evidence do you have that 899,000 ≠ 899k or 899,000 ≠ 899 thousand?-- Whats new?(talk) 02:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not math, it's semantics. Declaring 899,000 could give the impression that the value wasn't rounded. Also OzTAM is inconsistent as they use millions for any thing over a million while using misleading ones for anything below instead of using thousands. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't think you've put a strong case forward. You're ignoring mathematics and accussing the source of ratings as having an inconsistency problem, neither of which justifies your change in my opinion. If you'd like to further explain, or otherwise enter dispute resolution proceedings for further opinion, I would be interested - but for now I'm going to revert your changes for a second time. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You may also be interested that another IP (possibly yourself) have brought up a very similar issue in the past, see Talk:Finding Prince Charming#Stop using ",000" for ratings and other editors agreed with the position I put forward -- Whats new?(talk) 02:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
What the???? That source doesn't even quote ",000" in listings. Why the hell would anyone use it in the season table and bloat the column's width. And the point is the units in the season table figures should match the ones duplicated in the ratings table. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Because it is common practice with sub-7 figure viewership figures. At The Wrong Girl, both episode and ratings templates use the same units. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Please don't continue to make alterations before discussing. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Why does the template documentation for viewer_type state thousands as an example then??? 119.224.3.221 (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You added that yourself -- Whats new?(talk) 02:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to episode table docs which I used as a ref for the other that states: The numeric format that viewers are grouped within the episode table. Set to "millions" by default. Including the parameter but leaving it blank will disclude the bracketed format. Format: thousands 119.224.3.221 (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

'thousands' is given as the format, not the example, in an optional parameter -- Whats new?(talk) 05:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
format uses the most common parameter for the example when the default isn't used. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see evidence of that, but in any case that's a little off topic. You're the one seeking to change, so per WP:BRD it should be widened to a further discussion if you still do not agree, because I don't think you have made a strong case for the change. -- Whats new?(talk) 07:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the other uses of format: they all use the most common option as the parameters example. Therefore when viewers_type is used the most common usage according to the docs is to set it to thousands or 1000s, not to use a blank unit like you are using. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Also besides the template docs there is nothing that dictates the usage of viewers_type as you are doing and WP:IAR could also apply to whats stated in the docs. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The parameter is optional. You don't have to use it, and in this case there is no reasonable need to use it. The figures don't require rounding in the manner you're suggesting. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Your using the parameter to disable the default unit of millions and using a unit of thousands is not rounding anything as the fractional value is zero. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
No, the parameter doesn't need to be used at all. In fact, it wasn't before you added it per this diff [7] -- Whats new?(talk) 06:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The viewers_type parameter has existed for ages which I never added. Your using it on pointless figures that have a zero value below a thousand due to source rounding, which is why the ratings and season table ratings should be either in millions or thousands. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
It has existed in the template, but I'm saying you added the optional parameter to The Wrong Girl. It was not in use at that article before your edit, and I don't see a need for it to be used at all. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
That's because the default millions was in use for figures below a million which was incorrect due to a zero value having be added for the non-fractional part and was not in line with the ratings section, which was and currently is STILL incorrect with the pointless zero values that are padding the figures out to a thousand. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
It is fair to have both templates use the same format - but I disagree over your preferred format of three digits, and I don't see a compelling case to revert back to it, nor does there seem any other support in the similar previous discussion I mentioned earlier, or any other discussion or consensus, unless you can point to one I have not seen -- Whats new?(talk) 04:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Explain why padding the figures out with pointless zero values is compelling to you? It looks stupid and unnecessarily widens the columns, just as if you were to use millions and add a pointless "0." which isn't as bad as the longer ",000." 119.224.3.221 (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your subjective view that "it looks stupid." I think to the average reader, writing "753" would imply to them that seven hundred and fifty-three viewers watched a show, where as "753,000" leaves no doubt that the rating was seven hundred and fifty-three thousand viewers. There is no Wikipedia policy on how wide or narrow a column should be, so 'narrowing a column' should not be a basis for how data is presented - clarity is far more important. When writing "2.83" viewers, it is clear to someone that 2 and 83/100 people did not watch a show - so it is more obvious the number is rounded. Writing "0.753" is in keeping with that idea, but when a show doesn't ever exceed one million viewers, there doesn't seem an obvious need to use it as a rounding point. You seem more intent on keeping columns narrow than ensuring a reader can easily identify and understand information presented in an article, and I don't think that is the right priority. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
What the???? It's not 753,000 that viewed the ep, it's an average of 753k rounded to the closest thousand as there is no way that if it weren't rounded that it would come out to be ",000." You are the prime example of how a reader can think that that figures aren't rounded to the nearest thousand when they obviously are. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not claiming the number isn't rounded to the nearest thousand. Again, your issue is with presentation of content, and I don't see how the current method breaches WP:NUMBER, MOS:UNCERTAINTY or goes against any recent consensus on the subject. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
you stated "753,000" leaves no doubt that the rating was seven hundred and fifty-three thousand viewers, which implied that 753,000 is not rounded. There is absolutely NO reason to include the ",000" as it provides absolutely no value, wastes column width and can be misleading. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
And go use a ping instead of posting your pointless spam messages to the IP talk page. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, but you've now taken that quote out of context. That was in reference to writing "753" alone could leave doubt that 753 people watched a program - please don't twist my words like that. ",000" provides the value of clarity and per MOS:UNCERTAINTY it is often preferential to round with large numbers. 'Wasting column width' is not relevant. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
",000" does NOT provide clarity, it lessen it by making someone think the number isn't rounded in thousands and is as pointless as the "0." in front of values listed in millions. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, pings do not work for IP addresses. My messages to read my replies are not spam. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, that's in your opinion which you don't have consensus for. Your argument is a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- Whats new?(talk) 02:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
No it's not. You don't seem to like using millions when no value is in millions. This is the same thing as a table should not be listing the same pointless filler values whether they are tack on the end or leading. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I fear we're going round in circles here. You don't have consensus for your original changes, and I'd suggest you should either accept that or attempt to achieve it. -- Whats new?(talk) 12:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It's you!!!! One, it's standard practice to list millions of same day viewers in the main season table, two the ratings table is standard practice to list combined millions of viewers, which is from live and DVR, your Template:Australian_television_episode_ratings was never needed as the only difference between that and the standard Template:Television_episode_ratings one is the stupid and confusing use of the term consolidated which is meant to mean same as the DVR term. Personally, columns should say same day viewers; 7+ days viewers'; and Total viewers. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bayside Council logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bayside Council logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

IP talk page spamming

Do NOT spam with your arrogant crap logic again. First and last warning. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Whats new?.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 10:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I notice that you have the "administrator someday" userbox. Reviewing new pages is one of the best ways to develop experience needed to successfully wield the mop. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 10:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Episode summaries

I must ask why you haven't deleted the summaries made for Australian Survivor (season 3)? They are consistent with those made for the US version - the summary written for the last episode alone is more than 500 words, and the summary of the first ever episode is more than 300. All I was trying to do was make the page of the latest season of Australian Survivor consistent to all the others, at the moment it looks ugly and incomplete. If you're unhappy with the summaries maybe we should remove the Episodes subheading altogether. And also I would hardly call what I wrote a blow-by-blow analysis of the episode, it completely conforms with every other plot summary written for the Survivor episodes. Kapitan110295 (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: Reply made at User talk:Kapitan110295#Episode summaries to keep discussion in one place.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Whats new?. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Screen Australia logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screen Australia logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SBS Food Network logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SBS Food Network logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

File:APN Outdoor 2018 logo.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beyond International, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Thompson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Beyond International logo.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Your revert on MOSTV

You are invited to join the discussion on the talk page, which has been running and widely signposted since the beginning of last month. The change I made reflects the views of those editors who have contributed. On the minor issue of series's, this reflects correct usage as per MoS:POSS, but it is of course possible to turn the phrase around and say nationality of a tv series if you prefer. The series' you have restored is not correct since series in that context is singular. Kind regards, MapReader (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I dropped off a note about MOS:POSS myself without realizing MapReader had already done so. I've self-reverted that new talk section as redundant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

New content on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Zumbo%27s_Just_Desserts#Winner_reveal_in_first_paragraph

It seems clear to me that the spirit of WP:SPOILERS is a call for common sense and makes a case for removal of misused, informal spoiler warnings. While I agree that the text does not explicitly ban summary paragraph spoilers, it also does not state that they must be in the opening paragraph. That an action is not explicitly banned does not justify the action. Would a reasonable person loudly sing the lyrics to "Surfin' Bird" at every restaurant visit, then leave a scathing review no matter the dining experience? Of course there are other articles among Wikipedia's millions that also do not technically break the letter of the law. There are millions of articles. That said, those seeking general information about a series, e.g. to find whether it meets their interests as my wife did for example, clearly would not want the end revealed in the opening paragraph. The examples above make an interesting point, however this article covers a television series, not an outside event event such as the Boston Marathon. A more specific entry for television us MOS:TVLEAD, which states: "The lead paragraphs of an article should serve both as a quick introduction to the topic, and as a concise overview of the article itself, as per the Lead section style guideline. For example, an article on a television series should begin with basic information about the show, such as when it first premiered, genre(s) and setting, who created/developed the show, its primary broadcasting station (typically the studio that produces the show), and when the show stopped airing (the first airing of the final episode), etc." An example lead is then given which does just that -- provides a high-level overview of the content, without mention of specific events, just as the first paragraph of this article does except for the last sentence in question. Season-specific articles (those I have looked at; there are many) are the same, even those with multiple paragraphs such as The_Simpsons_(season_10). I am not advocating removal of the content and never have, only that mention of the specific event be moved out of the opening paragraph and into a section that more appropriately contains such details.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mr Inbetween, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FX (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Australian English

I'm not sure what you're referring to, because your comment had nothing to do with my edit. I reverted "program" back to "series" because "drama program" is not actually Australian English. I couldn't care less whether one uses "program" or "programme" and don't think I actually altered any of those (if I did, it was by accident - there were a lot of edits needing reverting), which was the subject of your RfC - which said nothing about "series". The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

edit summary

is suitable for some - the text in the two articles suggest it is the same person - please if you can - make more effort to identify why and how it is not the same person with good reliable sources WP:RS JarrahTree 03:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I'm sorry, but as you were the editor who PRODed the article, I would have thought you put more effort into checking for yourself. Apart from the fact there are numerous interviews with both individuals, they have performed in separate roles, there is a large age gap between them, and they have performed side-by-side on 9 seasons of Shaun Micallef's Mad as Hell [8], here is one of several pictures of them together [9] -- Whats new?(talk) 03:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
as to my methods please see my user page, eccentric items - thank you very much for the links - JarrahTree 04:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Buying the Beach

Notice

The article Buying the Beach has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable show that fails WP:GNG. Press releases and episode guides do not make reliable secondary sources and thus the notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Australian television episode ratings

Hey there. Concerning {{Australian television episode ratings}}, I was debating on using it for Doctor Who, but I believe the name wouldn't suit it. As the template creator, would you be opposed if I renamed it to {{Television episode ratings/consolidated}} or something similar, as a sub-template of {{Television episode ratings}}? Cheers. -- AlexTW 13:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I don't mind, although it was designed for the Australian ratings system, so I'm not sure if it can be easily applied to other country viewership systems so readily -- Whats new?(talk) 20:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The UK has a pretty similar system, in which they released overnight information, then consolidated/total ratings 7 days later. This template would fit even better than the US one, given the UK's recent four screen ratings, which includes laptop, smartphone and tablet viewing alongside the traditional television ratings. -- AlexTW 00:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, for now, I've just created the new title as a redirect, so I can use the template without its name as a trial run, to see how it works. If you're curious, you can see it at Doctor Who (series 11)#Ratings. Cheers. -- AlexTW 01:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
That looks like a good idea. UK and AU are closer in ratings systems, but there's still some key differences - the UK releases more data for example, so depending on how it goes, a UK version down the track might even be a possibility. But a redirect works for now as you say -- Whats new?(talk) 04:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

CNN Newsroom (International TV program)

FTR, I do not agree with this edit – that RM was highly contentious and while there was generally consensus that it should be moved, there really was not consensus on "what to move it to". IOW, if a second RM was held on that, I'm not at all sure the outcome would be the same. Pinging Gonnym to see if he agrees or not... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  • To be honest, the wording of the category was just me trying to figure out how best to describe the category to reduce the amount of reverts being done. These categories are used for tracking and maintenance so that we'll be able to keep track of articles with issues. In this scenario, while the article title change was one I supported (for lack of better option), I don't disagree that the title is disputed and also irregular per the naming conventions. I, personally, also don't see a problem with tagging categories. They are hidden, so only people who enable hidden categories can view them or people editing the category list. No real harm in keeping it there. A solution can be to change the description of the category to something along the lines of:

This is a category for television articles that use a disambiguation style that does not follow WP:NCTV, or are WP:INCDAB, however a consensus was not reached on changing them. Articles with irregular titles that had a contentious move discussion which resulted in a consensus to move can also be placed here. --Gonnym (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall and Gonnym: I understand both your points, but what is the point of keeping it in that category? I would have thought the goal was to encourage a move to a better title, achieved through a move discussion. Imperfect or not, such a discussion was held, an editor closed the discussion and moved the page. I'm not really sure what else you both want. If you're not happy with its new title either, that's fine (I don't love it but it's better than it was), and pages can be moved again should consensus change or new naming guidelines formed, but for right now I would argue that the article has been discussed, moved and at least improved. In other words, it doesn't meet the category requirements as described or even implied. -- Whats new?(talk) 21:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I see these entries as pieces of information. We gather the information. Currently, it means nothing as it's just a one-off item, but later on, from my experience, a pattern will emerge which might give us info on how to adjust our guidelines. This item was disputed not for "I don't like it" or "Don't agree" reasons, but because the guideline was not followed. What can we do to fix it? Maybe if we encounter a few more of these odd-items we'll know better. --Gonnym (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: The category is called "Television articles with disputed naming style" and following a discussion, in which the closing editor remarked it "...tick the boxes of being recognizable enough, precise enough, and satisfying the spirit of NCTV." On that basis, it is not a "disputed naming style" any longer. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are arguing. Are you arguing that the name wasn't disputed or that a closer closed the discussion as moved? You can't call that discussion not disputed. 3 of us were in favour of the title moved, and 2 weren't. That's a pretty much disputed title. Also, could you tell me how this hidden tracking category even affects anything? I really can't believe we're getting to the point of needing a RfC if a hidden category can be added or not... --Gonnym (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: The name was disputed, a discussion was opened, and a decision was taken as a result. I'm not opposed to the tracking category, but I suppose I don't understand what its point is if it remains disputed even after a discussion is held and action taken. How does the article become 'undisputed' then? The article can't follow NCTV as written, so it required additional disambiguation. NCTV says for that section: If the year, country, or a combination of both is still insufficient to disambiguate the topic, an appropriate genre or format word ("animated TV series" or "anime", "telenovela", "soap opera", "sitcom", etc.) can then be considered for use via a page move request which is effectively what occured. What more is achieved by retaining it in this tracking category? -- Whats new?(talk) 22:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It was actually this way - a name was identified as being incorrectly titled, a discussion was opened, a decision was taken as a result and since it was disputed and felt needed to be tracked, it was added to the category. It might help if you look at the two categories like this - Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style is a maintenance category. Articles in this category need to be moved out of here. Category:Television articles with disputed naming style is a tracking category. Articles in this category are problematic for some reason. They might one day leave this category and they might not leave. Currently it's helpful to keep track of them. --Gonnym (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, I suppose I understand the distinctions. I'm not sure I see much value in it still, and personally I feel the title and descriptions could be misleading as to their intent, but I'm not looking to make a big thing of it. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beach Cops, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Network Ten Pty Limited

Why did you undo all my changes to Ten Network Holdings? That company name was delisted and is no longer in use. The company is now officially Network Ten Pty Limited. All the updated information is from their website: https://tenplay.com.au/corporate/about J Bar (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@J Bar: As I said in the edit summary, the change of corporate name was unsourced in the article. I'm not suggesting you made it up, but such a change must be reliably sourced -- Whats new?(talk) 00:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The reference at the end of that sentence has a press release from Network Ten Pty Limited. All press releases after that date have the name of the new company. There are a number of them attached to the article. J Bar (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Whats new?. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coles Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FlyBuys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bridie Barry

Notice

The article Bridie Barry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dan Bourchier

Notice

The article Dan Bourchier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Bridie Barry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bridie Barry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridie Barry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genevieve Morris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sando (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Dan Bourchier for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dan Bourchier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Bourchier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tom Connell

Notice

The article Tom Connell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brooke Corte

Notice

The article Brooke Corte has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Brooke Corte for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brooke Corte is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Corte until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Tom Connell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom Connell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Connell until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ben Domensino

Notice

The article Ben Domensino has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 in Australian television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Wilkins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Olivia Newton-John Hopelessly Devoted to You title card.jpeg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Australian television series

I understand that some rebooted shows were placed in the wrong section "Future shows" rather than "In production" but rather than move them you keep deleting them entirely. I've had to reinstate the following already:

If there are any other errors, can you please move rather than delete? J Bar (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@J Bar: Sorry, I assumed they would already be in the list, given they were existing series and should have been in either "In production" or "Production ended" already. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
No worries. They were originally in "Production ended" but I moved them because they were rebooted and added the new start date. Just needed to be in "In production". I hope there haven't been any other such deletions because I only noticed these recent ones. J Bar (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Your conduct

On the advice given at WP:DWH, I am contacting you here in the hopes that we can find resolution to some disruptive behavior I've noticed in your interactions with me, mostly in certain move requests, which appears to be WP:HOUNDING in nature. I am confident this began shortly after you opened WT:NCTV#RfC on using US or U.S. which I opposed on Dec. 23rd and later had some back-and-forth discussion. Prior to that, to my recollection, we have had only a very few interactions.

Having looked back in your edit history on article talk pages, I don't see that you've participated very many move requests prior to that day, certainly not regularly enough to be significant - maybe 1-2 per month and almost always related to Australian topics. Ever since Dec 23rd, though, you seem to have found yourself in many move requests discussions - almost all of which where I have participated and outside your usual interest area. One way to visualize this is using the editor interaction analyzer showing the pages you and I have interacted on since Dec 23rd, and showing how your votes are always after mine - sometimes by minutes. Your votes have also been in (often vigorous) opposition to my votes - to a degree which I don't think can be attributed to chance.

So this is my note just informing you that I've taken notice of this trend. I'll ask that, if your doing this purposefully, to step back and stop targeting me, or I may escalate. If this is just coincidental or unintended, then no worries because it should resolve itself naturally in the course of time as our interactions will return to being infrequent. -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: I'm sorry you feel this way, but I assure you I am not "hounding" you. My contributions are generally on Australian and television topics, the latter an area you frequent as well, so it should not be surprising we edit or contribute to similar topics in this space. The interaction analyzer you refered to is, in my view, not very many edits. My increase in participating in requested move discussions has nothing to do with you nor any other individual, it is simply by virtue of me taking a keener interest in how Wikipedia guidelines are applied and reviewing the daily Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts update through my watchlist. I often disagree with your viewpoint, as I'm sure others do as well from time to time. Please don't take it personally. I am not stalking you, and respectfully, I think you are looking into my editing habits a little too closely. I don't, however, apologise for putting forward my point of view when it runs contrary to you or others, nor for taking an intereset where I do. I'm not sure what you 'escalating' would be, but if you are not satisfied with my response here, escalate away. I do not intend to stop contributing to media-related discussions. Thanks, -- Whats new?(talk) 09:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of this, Netoholic is at it again – this kind of edit is unacceptable, as this is not an "incorrect" name, and I believe Netoholic knows it. I have no idea what to do about this, but he is basically edit warring and "gaming" at this redirect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ahron Young

Notice

The article Ahron Young has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bingo Industries logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bingo Industries logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sydney Weekender Logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sydney Weekender Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Meet the Hockers

Hi just wondering why did you remove the information about Hock Your ride? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VavoMedia (talk • contribs) 12:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC) @VavoMedia:The information is not particularily notable to the program, reads like WP:PROMOTION, and the included link fails WP:EXTERNALLINK. Further, the additions has no references from reliable sources, failing WP:VERIFIABLE. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the reply - we will improve more to spec but please see below also can google meet the hockers hock your ride : http://www.meetthehockers.com.au/hock-your-ride/ https://www.finder.com.au/meet-the-hockers-s1-ep5

The text was adjusted from what foxtel wrote about hock your ride.

Hock Your Ride was in 2 episodes and you will see more in session 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VavoMedia (talk • contribs) 14:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@VavoMedia: I would suggest reading WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY, as well as WP:PROMOTION. The text you are seeking to add reads more like an advertorial for a company, rather than encyclopedic information. There are many products and companies featured in television programs, but few are notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Primary sources can rarely be used as a source in this regard. There would need to be substansial coverage in secondary sources, which there are not. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Whats_new%3F/Archive_3&oldid=904436438"